OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAMRUP,GUWAHATI
C.C.17/2013
Present:-
1)Md.Sahadat Hussain, A.J.S. - President
2)Smti Archana Deka Lahkar - Member
Sri Tarun Ch.Deka - Complainant
S/O- Late Sut Ram Deka
Resident of House No.4
Suruj Nagar .P.O.Khanapara,Guwahati-22.
District: Kamrup (Metro), Assam.
-vs-
1) Life Insurance Corporation of India , - Opp.parties
Represented by Managing Director,
Jeevan Bima Marg.P.B. No. 19953,
Mumbai-400021
2) The Regional Manager,
Grievance Redressal Office
Eastern Zonal Office,CRM Department
4,C.R.Avenue, Kolkata-700072
3) Manager (CRM)
Guwahati Divisional Office
JeevanPrakash, S.S.Road,Guwahati-781001.
4) Branch Manager, LICI, HFL,
Fancy Bazar Branch,Guwahati-1.
5) Branch Manager,
CAB,Guwahati Divisional Office, LICI,Guwahati-1.
Appearance : -
Ld. advocate Mr.Kumar Monoranjan Haloi for the complainant Ld. advocate Mr.Ramendra Nath Dev Sarma Opp.Party No.1,2,3 & 5.
Date of argument- 4. 1 .2018
Date of judgment- 25. 1.2018
JUDGMENT
This is a complaint U/S- 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
1) The complaint filed by Sri Tarun Ch.Deka against Life Insurance Corporation of India ,and five others was admitted on 22.2.13 and notices were served on all the opp.parties; and Opp.Party No.1,2,3 & 5 filed a joint written statement and Opp.Party No.4 filed written statement separately. The complainant filed his evidence on 16.5.14 and he was cross examined by Ld counsels of the Opp.Party No.1,2,3,4 & 5. After cross-examination of the complainant side witness the Opp.Party No.1,2,3 & 5 filed evidence of one Ms.Manna Bhattacharyya and she was cross-examined by the Ld.counsel of complainant side. After cross examination of Opp. Party witness 1 by complainant, the case against Opp.Party No.4 is proceeding on exparte vide order dtd. 5.4.17. Finally Ld.advocate Mr.Kumar Monoranjan Haloi filed written argument for the complainant and Ld.advocate Mr.Ramendra Nath Dev Sarma filed written argument on behalf of Opp.Party No.1,2,3 & 5 and on 1.1.18 we have heard oral argument of Ld.advocate Mr.Kumar Monoranjan Haloi for the complainant and Ld.advocate Mr.Ramendra Nath Dev Sarma Opp.Party No.1,2,3 & 5 and today we deliver the judgment which is below-
2) The case of the complainant, in brief, is that the complainant had availed a loan of Rs.1,25,000/- from Life Insurance Corporation of India , HFL , Fancy Bazar under loan Account No.11000000872 in the year of 1993 attaching policies No. 480536143 and No.480536939 and he has been paying the EMI of loan as well as EMI of both the policies regularly, which were collected in LICI’s HFL at Guwahati till Dec.2007, but from Jan,2008 both the policies were separated and policy premiums were being collected in the CAB, and he has been depositing premiums in the CAB, but due to some discrepancies on the part of the opp.parties, he could not pay the EMI against the policies since Jan,2008 to March 2012, and to that effect he made representation before the authorities in many occasions and in pursuant to his representation dtd. 16.4.2008, the Manager (CR & HI)LICI , Guwahati Divisional Office vide letter under reference GDO/CRM and NHI dtd. 28.4.2008 asked the Branch Manager,LICI,CAB, Guwahati to do needful immediately, but no fruitful result came out and after waiting for some time he approached the authorities in many occasions for making fruitful arrangement for payment of premium both of the policies, but after lapse of long time nothing was done by the authorities. He, then, made a representation on 2.5.2012 before Regional Manager, Grievance Redressal Office, Eastern Zone, Kolkata , for taking necessary steps and after receiving said representation, the opp.parties revived the loan account with late fee and interest for the said lapse and he was compelled to pay an amount of Rs.12,688/- as late fine as interest and Opp.Party No.3 collected an amount of Rs. 4,329/- as miscellaneous collection for revival of the policy and in result he had to pay an excess amount of Rs.17,017/- without any fault on his part. For aforesaid wrongful collection, he made representation before the Senior Branch Manager, LICI, CAB, Fancy Bazar branch on 14.8.2012 praying for refund of the said amount collected from him as fine, interest and miscellaneous collection for the lapses as the same was due to the fault of the opp.parties, but nothing has been done for redressal of his grievances. He had been regularly paying EMI of his loan till Dec.2007, but due to fault of the opp.parties, he could not pay the same since Jan.2008. He constantly requested the authorities for making necessary arrangement for payment of the same, to-which the authority did not pay any heed which is a clear instance of deficiency of service on the part of the opp.parties. The opp.parties illegally collected late fine as well as interest from him to cover up their lapse and therefore, he is entitled to get back the said amount with prevailing rate of interest as well as compensation. During the period, the complainant was to renovate his house, but due to deficiency of service on the part of the opp.parties for long period he has been suffering from mental agony and could not renovate his house resulting deterioration of his house leading to excess costing of Rs.30,000/-. Due to such deficiency of service on the part of the opp.parties, they are liable to refund him Rs.17,017/- alongwith interest and Rs.50,000/- as compensation with their reliefs this forum may deem fit.
3) The pleading of the Opp.Party No.1,2,3 & 5, in brief, is that the complaint is not maintainable and there is no cause of action against them. The complaint is barred by limitation. The complainant fails to show any cause of action against them and as such the complaint is not maintainable. The complaint is false and vexatious . There is no any discrepancies on the part of them, for which the complainant could not pay EMI against the said policies since Jan.2008 to March 2012. Immediately after receiving letter dtd. 16.4.2008, the problem was solved on the part of the opp.parties and accordingly, complainant visited divisional office, Guwahati and paid the necessary late fee as well as other fees as per rules for revival of the policies alongwith premiums and the policies were revived, but surprisingly, complainant remained silent since 16.4.2008 till the date of payment and on the day of revival of the policies and even on the day of payment for revival of the policies, the complainant did not lodge any complaint, rather he paid entire money including late fee as well as other necessary fees as per rule for revival of policies without any objection . It is not true that the complainant made several representation before the authorities in Guwahati. The complainant made contradictory statement stating inter-alia that he has been depositing the policy premiums in the CAB at Guwahati. He also gives contradictory statement that he made several representations before authorities concerned in Guwahati in many occasions for arrangement for payment of premiums against the said policies, they received late fee , other necessary fees from the complainant which were required for revival of the policies as per rules . The Opp.Party No.5 has received letter dtd.14.8.12 which was sent by post and same is under consideration. There was no fault on their part as stated by the complainant. The complainant filed the instant complaint with a malafide intention for illegal gain from the public property dealt by the opp.party. The complaint is as such, liable to be dismissed.
4) The gist of the pleading of the Opp.Party No.4 is that the complaint filed is vauge one. They are one of the department of Opp.Party No.1 having distinct responsibility though financial housing loans to the customer and to realize the loan amount but they are not to pay EMI’s towards the LIC policies held by the customer. There is no anomalies or discrepancies on the part of them in realization of the loan amount from the complainant and the same has been duly liquidated by him. They are not dealing in the matter of demand of LIC policies which were deposited with them as collateral security for repayment of loan and they send back the policies to the concerned department in recovery of premium of the said policies. The complainant himself admits that due to lapse on his part in payment of the premiums of the policies, he himself applied for revival of the policies. In this case no error has been committed by the opp.parties and they cannot be held liable for default of the complainant and hence the complaint is liable to dismissed.
5) We have perused pleading of both the parties as well as their evidence. It appears to us that the complainant had done two policies with LICI vide policy No. 480536143 and 480536939 and he had also availed a loan of Rs.1,25,000/- from Life Insurance Corporation of India , HFL , Fancy Bazar under loan Account No.11000000872 in the year of 1993 and in the said loan both of his policies were attached . It also appears to us that the complainant admits that he could not pay the EMI against the said policies since Jan,2008 to March 2012 and policies were revived during June 2012 and at the time of revival of the policy the opp.parties collected Rs.12,688/- as late fine and interest as well as Rs.4,329/- as miscellaneous collection fees for revival of the policies. The complainant pleads that the excess amount of Rs.17,017/- was illegally collected from him, which he has entitled to get back. The opp.party sides’ plea is that they lawfully collected Rs.12,688/- as late fine and interest as well as Rs.4,329/- as miscellaneous charge for revival of the policies at the time of revival of the policies as per rule.
6) The complainant states in evidence that due to discrepancies on the part of opp.parties he failed to pay the premium of both the policies from Jan/2008 to March/2012 and he had also been making consistent requests to opp.parties for making necessary arrangement for payment of the premiums, but they did not heed to his request. The opp.party sides’ plea is that there was no discrepancies on their part, in result of which, the complainant failed to pay the premiums on the policies from Jan/2008 to March/2012 and while he prayed for revival of the policies in the year of 2012, his request was accepted and both the policies were revived after collecting due premiums as well as interest, late fine and miscellaneous collection fees and the complainant paid the fine and interest etc.without complain at the time of revival of the policy and he also never filed any representation before them between Jan/2008 to March/2012,nor he approached of their office for revival of the policies. We have perused the cross-examination part of the evidence of the complainant and found that he admits that he has not raised any claim at the time of revival of the policies about collection of interest, late fine etc. from him and that as soon as he paid the premiums as well as late fees etc. on 6.6.2012, both the policies got revived. We have perused the documents filed by the complainant in his evidence and found that Exhibit.2 is a letter dtd. 2nd May, 2012 written to Regional Manager, Grievances Redressal Office, Eastern Zone Kolkata, LICI, where he states that from 1st Jan.2008, the premiums was started and the policy premium was to be paid in the CAB, but he could not pay the premium in the CAB due to some discrepancies in the policy premium and therefore, he prays for taking personal care to his premium and helping him; and Ex.8 is the notice given to Branch Manager,LICI, CAB, Fancy Bazar dtd. 14.8.12 asking for refund of penalty and interest he had paid at the time of revival of the policy. Except these two documents , the complainant files no other documents to show that before revival of his policies which was done in the year of 2012 (6.6.12) he had any written communication with any of the authorities of the opp.parties with allegations that due to discrepancies on the part of the opp.parties he failed to pay up premium from Jan/2008 to March/2012. Thus, it is established that the complainant has failed to prove his allegation that due to discrepancies on the part of the opp.parties he failed to pay the premium from Jan/2008 to March/2012 or to the date of revival of policies and he even fails to describe what is the discrepancies made by the opp.party and that fact proves that he has negligently not been paying premium from Jan/2008 to March/2012 or to the date of revival of the policies which was done 6.6. 2012. Therefore, we are of opinion that in such situation the opp.parties are entitled to collect the lapsed premiums with interest and late fine and miscellaneous collection fees as per insurance rule.
7) The complainant admits that at the time of revival of the policies he was satisfied the process of revival policy and collection of premiums with interest, fine , collection fees and he did not object to the act of collection of fine, interest and miscellaneous collection fees. In this case, the complainant side has also not submitted under which rule he is not liable to pay interest, fine and miscellaneous collection fees at the revival of the policies. It is rule of the Life Insurance Act that at the time of revival of the lapsed policies the policy holder is to pay lapsed premiums with interest, fine and miscellaneous collection fees. Therefore, we are of opinion that the opp.party is lawfully collected Rs.12,688/- as alleged fine and interest as well as Rs. 4,329/- as miscellaneous collection fees from the complainant at the time of revival of the policies ; and therefore, the complainant has no cause of action as well as merit to file the instant complaint against the opp.parties and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
8) Because of what has been discussed as above, we hold that the complainant has no cause of action for filing the present complaint against the opp.parties and the complaint lacks merit. Hence, the complaint is dismissed on contest , but without cost.
Given under our hands and seals on this the 25th day of Jan,2018.
(Smti.Archana Deka Lahkar) (Md.Sahadat Hussain)
Member President
